|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2024 12:36:08 GMT -5
ZD has stated very clearly he doesn't know what a soul is. I've never heard ZD say that. I've heard him say that he doesn't know what other people mean by (the term) soul. Correct. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2024 12:42:22 GMT -5
I've never heard ZD say that. I've heard him say that he doesn't know what other people mean by (the term) soul.
That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the
giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being
-- I am that.
Amritbindu Upanishad
That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2024 12:44:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, but... The end point is acquiring what Gurdjieff called Real I. That's having a body of a finer vibration, Gurdjieff called it a Soul body (in Beelzebub's Tales). The beginning process is using the physical body as a chemical laboratory to transform the energy of food, air and (sensory) impressions into a finer energy, not known in ordinary life. It's a tangible energy, meaning, you know when it is present (and when it isn't). Gurdjieff said a man or woman with Real I (Soul body) "is immortal within the limits of the solar system", meaning, nothing within the solar system could destroy the Soul body (and basically will last longer than the solar system lasts). In Search of the Miraculous pg 94. (Slightly combined with Beelzebub's Tales language). ... no, that's not the real I and not SR. SR is not about transformation but realization. Nothing has to change other than a shift of perspective from seeing the real as false and the false as real to seeing the real as real and the false as false. SDP and Gurdi are basically alchemists. It's just a higher level of SVP experience. SR is seeing thru the SVP, not transforming the SVP into a super SVP. And that's not immortality, that's just an extended life time. Immortality means never born and so never having to die. Hence his misconceived question to me about how I am planning to die. Precisely. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2024 15:43:27 GMT -5
It may depend upon what one considers "an answer." The answers to ALL of my existential questions got answered definitively, although the answers now seem humorous in retrospect. Here are some examples: 1. Why, as Americans at this retreat, are we chanting in Korean? Why hasn't the format changed in a way that acknowledges that most retreatants are lay people who speak English? This question arose spontaneously during my first Zen retreat. While chanting the Heart Sutra, the mind suddenly dropped away (hard to describe) and there was a huge insight. Afterwards, the answer to the question became obvious. The Zen Master who created the Zen school that sponsored the retreat was Korean, and he set up the program the way he wanted to. He spoke Korean and he inserted Korean chants into the format. This answer and accompanying understanding will seem trivial, but it was not trivial at the time. 2. My final existential question was, "How is it possible to stay in a unity-conscious state of mind permanently?" After the past sense of "me" vanished, and it was realized that THIS is the only doer, the answer to question then became obvious. Every human is ALWAYS in a unity-conscious state of mind whether they know it or not because there is only THIS doing whatever is done. The illusion was that "I" had oscillated between states of unity consciousness and ordinary consciousness, but that idea was false. There had never been a SVP oscillating between unity consciousness and ordinary consciousness. 3. One of my grandfather's favorite riddles: It was the bottom of the ninth inning. The score was tied, and the bases were loaded. The batter hit a home run, but not a man scored. Why? Because it was a game of baseball played by women. 4. A professor was greeted by a student one morning who said, "Good morning." The professor walked on thinking, "I wonder what he meant by that?" This is an old joke that illustrates that the professor was living in his head, but it can be asked as a koan. What did the student mean? The answer is that the student meant "Good morning!" haha I could list dozens of other koans (some shallow and some extremely deep), and they all have simple obvious answers once the illusion or paradox or double bind is penetrated. Some of them are answered by a physical action but a majority are answered with words. What do you know? Who thinks he knows things.. and who is he telling? Knowing is the devils lair of deception and arrogance.. The only thingless thing that ever asks a question or finds an answer to a question is THIS. It helps to distinguish between intellectual or conceptual knowing (episteme), which is relative, and direct or non-conceptual knowing (gnosis) which is not relative.  ITSW, anyone who posts here is THIS interacting with the field of its own beingness because the poster and the reader of posts are both THIS. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 29, 2024 20:57:31 GMT -5
That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the
giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being
-- I am that.
Amritbindu Upanishad
That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. Themselves.  There are religions, sects and traditions that teach that one is a child of God, and something about that authentically resonates with many, because on an intuitive level it hints at the Real. But mind does it thing and makes of it salvation for the person. A tough nut to crack, as you say. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 29, 2024 21:04:32 GMT -5
It's a general distinction between information and knowledge. Information can be inferred and therefore communicated whereas knowledge is a facet of consciousness. Hence in computer science we can quantify information into bits, but the computer doesn't know anything. It also comes up in p-zombie theory where a zombie processes information precisely as a human does, but has no knowledge of anything.
AI brings about the zombie era. Better at everything while knowing absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jan 29, 2024 21:12:40 GMT -5
What do you know? Who thinks he knows things.. and who is he telling? Knowing is the devils lair of deception and arrogance.. The only thingless thing that ever asks a question or finds an answer to a question is THIS. It helps to distinguish between intellectual or conceptual knowing (episteme), which is relative, and direct or non-conceptual knowing (gnosis) which is not relative. ITSW, anyone who posts here is THIS interacting with the field of its own beingness because the poster and the reader of posts are both THIS.Right, because there is only one Aliveness (cosmically speaking) which temporarily imparts aliveness to every single thing. To use your analogy, the Aliveness seeing out my eyes is the same Aliveness seeing out yours, and on and on. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 29, 2024 22:32:28 GMT -5
The only thingless thing that ever asks a question or finds an answer to a question is THIS. It helps to distinguish between intellectual or conceptual knowing (episteme), which is relative, and direct or non-conceptual knowing (gnosis) which is not relative. ITSW, anyone who posts here is THIS interacting with the field of its own beingness because the poster and the reader of posts are both THIS.Right, because there is only one Aliveness (cosmically speaking) which temporarily imparts aliveness to every single thing. To use your analogy, the Aliveness seeing out my eyes is the same Aliveness seeing out yours, and on and on. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jan 30, 2024 12:27:35 GMT -5
I didn't know you were on a bullshit tour. But it makes sense now. You've only bullshitting yourself, I don't think anyone here truly bought your posh soto zennist schtick. Alternatively, you could read what Lolly wrote about non-reactivity. Maybe that helps. Good stuff. And if that doesn't help either, then just continue like this and destroy the rest of that little credibility that you still have left... and then be free! People tend to underestimate the potency of the left hand path. z' has always admitted to his reactivity, often with self-effacing humor.  Looked more like mental self-flagellation to me. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2024 13:19:11 GMT -5
(Moved from other thread where it is off topic) I gather I shouldn't be "rude" and post my contrary ideas in the midst of people's conversations. But - question about forum rules - am I allowed to post my ideas in threads that I start? Or must I bow to the New Age admin-priests in order to post on this forum at all? I like writing, even if not a ton of people respond. What happens if I start threads like "Sloppy thinking that supports the false self", or "New Age fallacies", and write things that admins don't like? Assuming I don't mention names and only talk about ideas. Will they get emotional and put in me in an iron maiden until I cry out my agreement and acquiescence, that their Spirituality is "bigger than mine", and that I too am a believer? I can't speak to the forum rules with authority so I won't at all, for that, ask reefs directly. The spirit of the dialog here, in my understanding, is that any and all ideas are subject to criticism. What happens, inevitably, is that the criticism - especially if it's ridicule - often entangles the person who wrote the idea being ridiculed. Generally speaking, even a stark ridicule of a person is tolerated every now and again. But then there's subjective interpretation by the subject, and if they feel offended, drama can ensue. Drama is an annoying distraction, and feeling offended is a form of suffering. Can you keep your critiques and ridicule impersonal? What I wrote here about contempt would seem to suggest to me an interest in drama on your part, whether you're conscious of that or not. As you alluded to, there are certain threads - like this one for instance - where a greater measure of drama is tolerated because the thread is specifically set aside for that.  Also, facetious personal attacks, (the "kidding around" I was referring to) are best limited to folks who either "strike first" or that you have a history with that suggests it isn't really malicious. I promise to forego any claim of offense. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 23, 2024 13:21:30 GMT -5
(Moved from other thread where it is off topic) I gather I shouldn't be "rude" and post my contrary ideas in the midst of people's conversations. But - question about forum rules - am I allowed to post my ideas in threads that I start? Or must I bow to the New Age admin-priests in order to post on this forum at all? I like writing, even if not a ton of people respond. What happens if I start threads like "Sloppy thinking that supports the false self", or "New Age fallacies", and write things that admins don't like? Assuming I don't mention names and only talk about ideas. Will they get emotional and put in me in an iron maiden until I cry out my agreement and acquiescence, that their Spirituality is "bigger than mine", and that I too am a believer? I think the “admin” would welcome your curiosity… As for the caustic opposite of win friends and influence people moderator… who knows?  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 12:07:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, but... The end point is acquiring what Gurdjieff called Real I. That's having a body of a finer vibration, Gurdjieff called it a Soul body (in Beelzebub's Tales). The beginning process is using the physical body as a chemical laboratory to transform the energy of food, air and (sensory) impressions into a finer energy, not known in ordinary life. It's a tangible energy, meaning, you know when it is present (and when it isn't). Gurdjieff said a man or woman with Real I (Soul body) "is immortal within the limits of the solar system", meaning, nothing within the solar system could destroy the Soul body (and basically will last longer than the solar system lasts). In Search of the Miraculous pg 94. (Slightly combined with Beelzebub's Tales language). ... no, that's not the real I and not SR. SR is not about transformation but realization. Nothing has to change other than a shift of perspective from seeing the real as false and the false as real to seeing the real as real and the false as false. SDP and Gurdi are basically alchemists. It's just a higher level of SVP experience. SR is seeing thru the SVP, not transforming the SVP into a super SVP. And that's not immortality, that's just an extended life time. Immortality means never born and so never having to die. Hence his misconceived question to me about how I am planning to die. I have never said anywhere my view is about SR. We have a specific language with specific meaning, so when I use the words Real I, sure, it most likely means something differently from the way you use the words. I've probably said that at least 100 times. The SVP is a dead end and goes nowhere and can go nowhere. I've said that numerous times. The self-avatar (SVP) consists only of conditioning, thoughts, feelings/emotions and body-actions. I've said that probably 100 times. Yes, I am an alchemist, but the SVP cannot be transformed into anything else. Gurdjieff like the word merde, shit. The SVP is at best, fertilizer, that's what he actually meant. Our essence arises out-of and comes-from the Ground, Source. Our essence is a seed, literally. After this, communication goes off the rails, so I'll just stop there. But don't say something is my view when it isn't. Means you clearly don't understand even the first A, B, Cs. See? The nondual view and the Gurdjieff view are like Relativity and quantum mechanics, neither can be understood in terms of the other. Each are consistent within itself. But, yes, in a Black Hole they have to be reconciled. ...I think one more post I wanted to reply to... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 12:19:49 GMT -5
He has a lifetime invested and it’s part of his identity now… how do you walk away from that? For most people it doesn’t even make sense why you would want to… Yes, same for the zennist. They've built their identity around it. And they got lost in dogma and ritual. And dogma and ritual are abstractions, lifeless. Only the living truth can set you free. That's the difference between truth and truthin'. What SDP is interested in is truth, but we are not interested in that here, we are interested in truthin'. That's the big clash of perspectives you see between SDP and ZD all the time. I can play both sides, but in the end I always bring it back to truthin'. ZD tends to stay firmly on the truthin' side. That's why SDP usually found my explanations more palatable. So SDP often thought he finally got my drift but then he was at a total loss again. It must seem like a bait and switch game to him. So I can understand his frustration. But it's self-created misery, that's what he has to realize. I'm not frustrated and I'm not in misery. I'm just here to share my view, and to be entertained a little. I understand that my view is very difficult to-enter-into. I understand why my view is very difficult to-be-entered-into. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 14:04:22 GMT -5
That in whom reside all beings and who resides in all beings, who is the
giver of grace to all, the Supreme Soul of the universe, the limitless being
-- I am that.
Amritbindu Upanishad
That way of defining "soul" is fine with me. Many people, however, refer to the word "soul" as if it is something distinctly separate that inhabits a body, and migrates, transmigrates, etc, and I've never heard an explanation of what, specifically, they think it is that does that. , the Yogacara thread, gives a little taste. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 14:26:42 GMT -5
Agree. In a sense, we don't choose our 'aim'. It's more that it chooses us. I might be wrong but it sounds like the 'ultimate' for Gurdi, is similar to what Reefs would call 'SR+alignment'. Seems to me that Gurdi was definitely on the alignment track, but far from the SR track. As Farmer noticed, you're never done with the Gurdi work. It's the same with alignment, you're never done. With SR though, once you've realized Self, you've realized Self. That's why SDP keeps confusing SR with alignment, thinking that there always has to be a further. But since SR is referring to the absolute realm, a 'further' doesn't even make sense. A 'further' can only apply to something in the relative realm. That's where SDP's confusion lies. It's the SVP thinking about and imagining what the unknown, unthinkable and unimaginable would be like based on what the known, thinkable and imaginable is. He's spent the past 15 years like that, and it just doesn't work like that. Hence his mounting frustration over the years. Now he's reached a breaking point and is standing at the edge of the blue cliff. On the other side ZD is beckoning patiently. I've done that too and I've also met SDP on his side and gave him a kick in the butt there. Let's see if he's man enough to do the jump into total freedom. He can't take Gurdi with him there, that's for sure. That's what he has to realize. Gurdi, with his levels, layers and degrees approach, is nailing SDP's foot forever to the relative realm. Let's see what happens on on May 1, 2024. Still here, but feeling less inclined to beat a dead horse. But as they say in physics sometimes, you're not even wrong. |
|
Also, facetious personal attacks, (the "kidding around" I was referring to) are best limited to folks who either "strike first" or that you have a history with that suggests it isn't really malicious. I promise to forego any claim of offense. 